It is necessary to aproach all endeavors and philosophies with the same perspective. Such is the reason I fall on the liberal side of many issues even though I got there by means of a conservative attitude. I am not by any means a Republican, nor do I automatically support any candidate simply on the basis of party affiliation. Because in my mind the social platforms of both parties are backwards from their fiscal and legal policies. Conservatism, in the American political sense of the word, refers to a desire for reduced govermental control and influence over the lives of individuals, economically and legally, hence the Republican stance favoring reduced taxes, individually owned health care, and general economic independence. On these issues I agree with the Republican party because they stay true to the principles of fiscal conservatism and the constitutional definitions of various powers of the government. On social issues, however, the Republican party clings to a different definition of conservatism that implies a need for things to stay the way they have been and a fear of change. Romantic American individualism seems to be the concern of their policies but the implementation is quite opposite, and I find the liberals are much closer to the personal freedoms sought after by individualist thinkers. For example, how can the GOP reject a governmental interference such as Medicare or Affirmative Action, claiming the righteousness of individualist ideals, while they support the legal suppression of an act of freedom such as gay marriage or abortion. The reason is Christianity and the religious right wing. The social interests of the church, and its insatiable desire to crush individual freedoms, are in clear conflict with the interests of the very people who make up its body. I happen to agree with conservatives on these two particular social issues for my own reasons that have nothing to do with Jesus, but my idealistic view of universal philosophy requires me to side with the Democrats in the actual application of law. What I mean by that is that even though I don't personally agree with gay marriage or abortion, it is not my place nor that of the law to prohibit the individual freedoms of otherwise law-abiding citizens. But it is my place to disagree. And it is each man's place to live his life (the very same reason I oppose abortion).
I approach all concerns with the same philosophy and try to avoid clear conflicts in my support of a given side of a given concern. I've found all my policies from world political issues all the way down to my personal interests and choices come back to the same romantic ideals of individualism. So I say a lot of things that sound arrogant when I talk about how I have to do what I need to do for things to be right, but it's true for you too. There's nothing wrong with helping people out, and I try to do as much of it as possible, but ultimately you cannot depend on a system that is built on communal efforts as its base. Simply put, I don't trust anybody but myself, so I give credit to myself for the things right in my life, and when something goes wrong, I know exactly who to blame, and I know exactly whose job it is to fix the things that go wrong, and I don't go blaming my problems on other people and I don't go complaining about it either because doesn't do anybody any good. And thusly I have lived. And I say I live because I don't hide behind any doctrine to define my life for me. I live in the moment, drinking deep from the fountain of life, every second as a lifetime, for I know my very lifetime a mere second in the eyes of eternity, and every moment is new and full for me. Nothing is defined or predetermined in my world until I define things as I see them and as I know the world to be, rather than relying on some doctrine or policy to show me how it's supposed to be.
Trust no one but yourself, or at the very least hold yourself accountable for your losses and your victories alike. And live.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
